Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional military organizations (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   no consensus. Both sides made good and bad points. The article isn't verified, but it's not fully unverifiable. Once I disregard the bad reasoning on both sides, I can't find a consensus either way. Mgm|(talk) 12:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

List of fictional military organizations
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

List of trivial mentions, some of which are OR (i.e. Terran Federation "Armed Forces"). A "category" would be better, at it'll only show the ones of any interest. Ryan 4314  (talk) 15:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:V, with no citations provided to demonstrate these are indeed what they claim to be. - Biruitorul Talk 17:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep' The organisations can be easily documented through the references for the articles for the notable works. A perfectly reasonable list, meeting the list criteria. If one or two are undocumentable OR, that can be discussed on the talk p. A category would be much inferior, because it would a/require making an article for each of these groups, while there is significant activity (unfortunately sometimes successful) trying to delete such articles, b/even if they were all recognized as notable enough for an article, the category would only give their  names, not the fictional works involved or the name of the author, information which is given here, as usual for a list. I'm sorry, but without any implication about the individual nominator here, I see deletions such as this a part of the trend to remove fictional content--removing full articles and putting inadequate summaries in combination articles, followed by removing combination articles and putting the bare bones on lists, followed by removing the lists. this is not a good trend, and would never have been approved by the community in toto, but is being carried out piecemeal. DGG (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep — Maybe it's me, but I am not understanding where WP:OR comes into play here. For instance, I don't see how listing that the Terran Federation, which is the centerpiece of the famous novel (later films) Starship Troopers, is considered original research. The same can be said about most of the other items in this list. I also think this can be improved by making this a list of lists and splitting this into other, smaller, and more maintainable lists. MuZemike  ( talk ) 18:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The OR is that the article literally calls it "Terran Federation Armed Forces", I don't believe it's ever been referred to by this name in the book, if someone deduced it, then it's OR. Ryan 4314   (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So fix it. It's been a while since I read Starship Troopers, but it certainly had a "Mobile Infantry" and I recall an "Army" and a "Navy" (or perhaps it was a "Fleet") as well. If they weren't collectively called the "Armed Forces" they could at least be called whatever they were called in the book. DHowell (talk) 04:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You have the audacity to say to me "so fix it", and then go on to say "any original research is solved by removing or fixing the specific OR", so why don't you go and "fix it". It is not the responsibility of the nominator to "fix" an article, if anyone cared enough to do it, they would. If they don't, then it's a fair indicator that no-one ever will. In fact if you look at the history, since this article was last nominated, no attempts have been made to improve it, just more trivial data added. Ryan 4314   (talk) 05:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And you have the audacity to say to all of us, that there's some OR, and nobody's working on it, "so delete it" if it's not completely fixed in 5 days. There is no deadline, and AFD is not cleanup, etc. This is a volunteer project and fixing Wikipedia is every editor's responsibility. It is especially the responsibity of anyone who believes there is a problem that needs to be fixed to fix it. And it is the responsibility of the nominator to consider all other options before nominating an article for deletion. If "Terran Federation Armed Forces" is the worst example of OR you can find in this article, then there is hardly any OR that needs to be fixed. Who exactly is going to be harmed because "Wikipedia said Starship Troopers has a 'Terran Federation Armed Forces'"? Anyway, I've gone ahead and fixed that particular item, so now I've gotten rid of the only OR that has been pointed out in this entire discussion. So will you now withdraw "original research" from your nomination rationale? DHowell (talk) 22:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, per WP:NOTDIR and WP:IINFO, some categorization may be original research as well. Again, "fictional something" is too vague a criterion to make the list manageable. Could possibly be split into more manageable separate list articles (e.g. military orgs in tv series, books, games).--Boffob (talk) 19:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable clutter/cruft that isn't very encyclopedic. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sourcability doesn't mean notability. This is just another shovelful of unmaintainable listcruft. Trusilver  23:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.   —Nick-D (talk) 23:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete A lot of the problems could be solved by "normal editing", but the list would look nothing like what it does now. This list is indiscriminate, unsourced, and divided along editor classifications.  Who is to say that there is a commonality between the Tau in Warhammer 40,000 and a fictional company in a WWII game?  How many of these links in this article are redirects and how many entries in this list aren't individual notable elements?  Who determines what a fictional terrorist organization is? Protonk (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Drum this indiscriminate, unsourced, cruft collection out of the corps.  Much better served by a category. L0b0t (talk) 20:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - these objections were all answered in the first unsuccessful deletion nomination 2 years ago. Although consensus can change I do not see any reason why it could or should.  As demonstrated in that discussion, the list criteria are well-formed, closed-ended, and discriminate: these are (1) military forces, (2) that are fictional, (3) in works of fiction.  List articles are perfectly legitimate on Wikipedia and it is up to those who maintain each list to address the threshold of verifiability required of each list item.  The list is useful as a navigational / categorization system to a reader who might be interested in the subject.  Editors are free to enjoy or not enjoy fictional universe but the opinion that they are "cruft" is just that, an opinion, and not a valid source of argument.  Personally, I don't like real military history either, but I don't go about trying to rid the encyclopedia of ancient battles as "war cruft". Many readers must appreciate the subject because military fiction (a somewhat broader category that includes fictional accounts of real military organizations) is a bona fide category of fiction (see ).  It allows one researching the subject to quickly find notable information, for example depictions of fictional United Nations military operations or fictional US Army units - analysis of how fiction writers treat various subjects is a real subject  for purposes of studying both literature and popular culture.  Neither categories nor internal hyperlinking would work because this ties together two data points (name of organization, which itself is often notable, and the name of the work). - Wikidemon (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTDIR and WP:IINFO. A good article could be written on Portrayals of the military in fiction or similar, but it wouldn't look anything like this (it wouldn't be an unreferenced list, for starters). Nick-D (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - lacks citations to reliable sources. --EEMIV (talk) 03:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Any fictional item can easily be sourced to the original source - the book, movie, etc. in which it appeared. -- Banj e  b oi   23:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well those would be primary sources and are useful only up to a certain point. They are not enough to demonstrate real-world notability or importance of the subject.  That is only managed through secondary sources (3rd party material that is independent of the subject of the article such as media-studies textbooks, published guides to series and the like.)  This is all pretty clearly laid out at our policy and guideline pages verifiability, reliable sources, original research and, particularly germane to the discussion at hand, writing about fiction (a guideline this article fails miserably by the way.) Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Those sources would be perfectly suitable to show that a fictitious military organization is indeed a fictitious military organization - what the list is about. If the list was instead about the most dangerous, least effective, most famous, etc. fictitious military organizations then waving OR concerns would be valid. Instead this is just a list and every item on a list doesn't need to be independently notable, at all. -- Banj e  b oi   01:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Per DGG and Wikidemon. I'm also troubled by the campaign that now seems in effect to delete all fictional lists - this is draining on the community. -- Banj e  b oi   23:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Where to start, there are so many problems with this article.  Falls foul of WP:NOT, WP:UNDUE, WP:OR and WP:V for starters.  Doesn't conform to policy see WP:WAF.  Looking at the original delete discussion, none of the promise improvements have materialised.  Much better served by a category than a list.  Justin talk 00:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Who exactly is served better by a category - which I believe exists already? -- Banj e  b oi   03:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It will be better as only the notable "fictional military organizations" will be shown, at the moment it's a list of stuff like;
 * 5th Defense Group
 * 5th Special Division
 * 6th Fleet
 * 6th Orbital Fleet
 * 7th Mobile Fleet
 * 7th Orbital Fleet
 * 8th Air Defense Group
 * 8th Fleet
 * This explains nothing, except that a "fictional military organization" exists in "Gundam Seed" called "7th Orbital Fleet". We have nothing against sci-fi or comics (although this is what the majority of the contains), just against lists of indiscriminate information. Ryan 4314   (talk) 04:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * So how exactly is multiple categories better than a list again? You might want to note that many articles were started because they started as a redlink - removing a bunch of items from a list doesn't necessarily make it better, at all. -- Banj e  b oi   01:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Mate, I just answered that question, nobody wants a long list of trivial information. And "having a list of red-links, hoping that other articles might be created" is not a justification for inclusion in the encyclopaedia. Ryan 4314   (talk) 02:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually you didn't, you made it clear that you don't like the list but besides a strict alphasorting of articles - which isn't always so helpful - I see no benefits of eliminating this list and assuming users will use the category instead. In fact, I think it's more than likely that they won't as categories are traditionally under utilized. This list orgainzes the material in meaningful ways and fills in gaps where we don't presently have articles. And a recent study about Wikipedia showed that redlinks do work. Likely why we still use them. -- Banj e  b oi   19:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * First you ask "who", I answer, then you ask "how" and I answer. I'm stating my point; the few noteworthy articles linked too in this list are in the category, people are better served by this than searching through a swarm of trivial mentions (as exampled above) for the few small nuggets of interest. I don't think your logic of "having a list of red links will help the encyclopaedia will grow" is justification for inclusion. You've stated your argument, and I've stated mine, I hardly think we're gonna persuade each other to change our minds and this is starting to go around in circles. Ryan 4314   (talk) 20:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I asked who is better served if we delete this list and to me the answer is no one, I guess you see everyone as better served. We'll have to agree to disagree then. You then fall back on well there are trivial items on the list and - OMG! - redlinks; these are regular editing issues and quite commons to all lists. Not every list contains only notable items. I still see no one as benefiting by deleting of this content. -- Banj e  b oi   23:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:CLN and WP:SALAT and per DGG and Wikidemon. If it is necessary to make this a list of only notable fictional military organizations then this is accomplished by trimming the non-notable ones. If the list is too broad, then the solution is to split it into more manageable lists, as per the relevant guideline. A lack of sources is not a reason to delete anything with verifiable information; every item on this list is verifiable to the published fictional work in which it exists. If the source isn't cited here it may be cited on an article to which this list links, we do not require every fact to be cited everywhere it appears in Wikipedia, especially if the citation is only a wikilink click away. And "better as a category" is not a reason to delete a list, as lists and categories complement each other. Finally, any original research is solved by removing or fixing the specific OR, not by deleting an entire article because it has some OR. DHowell (talk) 04:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Wikidemon. Sure it needs some more referencing but I don't see what deleting it will accomplish, it's not offending anyone and it can't be improved if it's gone. Mfield (talk) 15:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as a useful list for organization and navigation, primary deletion criteria appears to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT which is not convincing. - Dravecky (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Category would be useful for organizing and navigation, this list, not so much. As for "I don't like it", actually, I do like it but it fails WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:WAF. L0b0t (talk) 17:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete indiscriminate list with no assertions of notability and too few internal links to be useful as a directory.ALR (talk) 11:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.